[kradem]

I [too] don't think it's about bad wording, yet pure bad logic.

The article is positioned on the principle that was imagined based on wrong assumtions of other theory and which acceptance will dissmiss the other theory.

I'm not even being close to think of being positioned on a side there, but afaic one could easily take one in this subthread.

TL; DR yep, dark matter could be denied no matter of the state of its understanding - just bring the better explanation of those irregularities its existence explains!

[boomboomsubban]

Acceptance doesn't dismiss theories, evidence does. A physicist shouldn't truly deny anything, just look at the evidence and say it is not the best theory.

Even with a better explanation, we can't be sure more information won't see the return of dark matter. Milgrom should understand this well, he's suggesting the return of the cosmological constant.

[kradem]

Forget dark matter, use the analogy from the article: afaik nobody has ever proven ether is not existing.

I know nothing about dark matter, but I could play a zero-sum game based on this article content - just the way anybody else could play - and outcome of that game is according to this article proven theory of this guy denies dark matter and dark energy theory.

And that's all, we could prove bad logic here without waiting for the third season of Dark Matter to be broadcasted.

[boomboomsubban]

"Proven theory" isn't a thing, Milgrom is a scientist, he should be well aware of that. Using truth conditional logic here just doesn't make sense.

[kradem]

This subthread deals with the completely different issue, it's about bad logic. No matter how well Milgrom and/or his theory could be discredited, that doesn't change the fact we can dismiss something prior to fully understand it.

It doesn't matter if that - what we dismissed - shapeshifts into something completely different (or similar...) afterward, on the contrary, regarding resources spent it would be sad if not.

[boomboomsubban]

>This subthread deals with the completely different issue, it's about bad logic. No matter how well Milgrom and/or his theory could be discredited, that doesn't change the fact we can dismiss something prior to fully understand it

It's not bad logic, it only seems like it is because you're approaching it from an Aristotlean view of logic. These things can't be proven, so dismissing them is never an option in science.

[kradem]

We're actually dealing with one complex sentence here, the second of these two:

> But, dark matter isn't something to be denied. Because it isn't understood yet, to the point where we can doubt its existence

I'm lousy in English and my knowledge of dark matter is irrelevant. With those two lemmas in mind, please answer the only question in this subthread:

could something be dismissed if we don't fully understand it?

[shakna]

The title is bad, because it lacks the eloquence that befits a journalist.

Milgrom has provided an alternative to Dark Matter.

He isn't on a street corner shouting it doesn't exist. He didn't set out to disprove the theory. He took some evidence and reinterpreted it.